any update on this thread ?

any update

thanks

tr

Once again many thanks, will do this as soon as.

update please

????????????????

Hi, I rang Paragon who are actually my lender and they told me who the underwriters were, i would try ge money. I also only found out about bespoke when i complained to freedom finance, they had never been mentioned to me before that and do not appear in any of my paperwork.

 

Good Luck

Regarding pre January 2005 sales of ppi :-

There could possibly be signs at the end of the distant tunnel regarding CERTAIN insurers - i think there is an 80% chance Cardif Pinnacle (yes cardif not cardiff) are you insurers.

to quote someone, referring to cardif pinacle in particular -

"FOS say now as the last time I spoke with them they were intending to use the matter of whether insurance companies had responsibility for sale as a test case with courts. "

and it could take up to 5 years apparently.

get looking on the search engines for more info

any update ?

any update ?

any update ?

any update ?

is all still quiet ?

PAGES 15 & 16 of this earlier document make interesting reading

"We identified a common failing of not disclosing to the customer that the

term of the cover was shorter than the term of the credit agreement and the

consequences of such mismatch. Our view is that failing to disclose such a

16 CP10/6: Payment Protection Insurance complaints (March 2010)

mismatch and its financial consequences to the customer would not comply

with the Principles. From the introduction of ICOBS 6.4.9R(3) this would also

have been a breach of the rule."

this means the purchaser of PPI thought he was buying insurance for the length of the loan not just for 5 years :evil:r

-----------------------

AND ON PAGE 34

"Balance

3.10 The main objection from the industry was that the overall effect of the guidance

was unbalanced and unfair because it made it very difficult for firms to reject any

PPI complaint, even where the firm felt it had acted quite correctly at point of sale.

Three main critcisms were that:"

-------------------------------

PAGE 54

Consumer Credit Act implications

We agree that the approaches give rise to some implications for the existing credit

agreement(s) under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA).

We contacted the Office of Fair Trading to understand the implications for firms in

this area and reached the following conclusions.

Where the PPI is sold alongside a loan, there are in fact two credit agreements.

One for the principal loan and a second to finance the optional PPI. The former

is debtor-creditor (d-c) and the latter is debtor-creditor-supplier (d-c-s). This is

irrespective of whether the creditor is also the supplier of PPI.

In CCA terms, where the PPI is sold alongside a loan, there are multiple agreements

within section 18(1)(a) CCA. Each part – the principal credit agreement and the

PPI credit agreement – would be treated as a separate agreement by virtue of

section 18(2). They may be documented together, subject to the Consumer Credit

(Agreements) Regulations 1983 (CCA Regulations). Regs 2(8) and 2(9) of the

current CCA Regulations allow for a common heading and signature box and

common statements of protection and remedies. Reg 2(7) requires an additional

form of consent.

If PPI is found to have been mis-sold, the remedy is generally to return the parties

to the position they would have been in had the PPI not been taken out. This should

lead to the cancellation of the PPI credit agreement and refund of monies paid by

the debtor. This is consistent with Article 15.1 of the new Consumer Credit Directive

which states that ‘where the consumer has exercised a right of withdrawal, based on

Community law, concerning a contract for the supply of goods or services, he shall

no longer be bound by a linked credit agreement’.

As the PPI credit agreement is separate (for CCA purposes) from the principal credit

agreement, it should be possible to cancel the former without affecting the latter.

Clearly though, if payments were made together as a single monthly instalment, the

amount of the instalment will need to be adjusted (as our approaches indicate). This

would not require a modification of the principal credit agreement. It would simply

be a consequence of cancellation of the PPI credit.

Even if the principal credit and PPI credit were treated as one agreement for CCA

purposes (which we do not believe would be the intended effect of section 18

CCA), it would be possible to modify the agreement to remove the PPI elements.

This could be done via a modifying agreement for section 82(2) CCA purposes. The debtor would have to agree (but we generally see no reason why he would not).

Alternatively, the creditor could simply refrain from collecting part of the payment

and from enforcing the relevant aspects of the agreement. This could be done as

a unilateral concession, although this would be less satisfactory from the debtor’s

point of view as it would not have the effect of amending the contract and in

theory the creditor could withdraw the unilateral concession at any time. It is better

(and clearer all round) to have a modifying agreement, signed by both parties, and

binding on both of them. At the very least the concession should be documented in

some durable way, such as a letter acknowledging it, given the potential for disputes.

Consequently, we do not see why our approaches discussed above should raise CCA

enforceability issues.28 However, a firm should take care in how it documents the

arrangements and what information it gives to the consumer.

to find this document on the internet google

fsa ps 10/12

....................and the page numbering is wonky...

for those of us that want to read more

google

cp10/6

and you get the view on march 2010 of the situation

SORRY gannymede

i am sorry about that ----- no i forgot the CPR part 8 bit

when i said defence etc .... i mean ...

file the allocation questionnnaire (AQ) and defence at court simultaneously {part 8 forces this !!}

and serve the defence on the Council

Ganymede thanks for trying to help but we know the CPR rules quite well

the notice was served under CPR part 8 !!

the notes on the claim form are a generalisation --part 8 CPR claims we assume are only say 1% of all claims &

as we said the notice was served under CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES PART 8 ( this stops certain other parts of the CPR rules applying)

Councils use CPR PART 8 when they do not expect to be questioned over the "ALLEGED" facts they produce to court - MEANING they expect a walkover

( AMONGST OTHER THINGS IF A DEFENCE IS NOT FILED UNDER cpr PART 8 -- THE CLAIMANT CANNOT OBTAIN SUMMARY JUDGEMENT)

Imagine a Local council issues a claim form using a POBox followed by its real address , it is assumed the postcode is that of the POBox

Question .. can the defence be handed it at the Council offices (see below for mythical example , in this case 23 the Big House)

or does it have to be posted to the pobox address?

and IF the answer is that THE DEFENCE MUST BE POSTED to the POBox and say the defence was posted on a Monday -- recorded delivery -- in law what is the day the defence is deemed as served on the Claimant

eg

Mickey Mouse council

Po Box 123

23 The Big House

Lancaster

Mythical Postcode

Consumer credit and debt | Policies | BIS

Consumers are key to a thriving and robust UK economy

It is important to learn lessons from the experience of the credit crunch and to take steps to improve the UK’s consumer credit regulatory regime for the future. The credit market needs to emerge in a better shape, with fairer outcomes for consumers, and contributing to, rather than potentially operating against wider financial stability.

The Government believes that action is needed to protect consumers, particularly the most vulnerable, and to promote greater competition across the economy. We need to promote more responsible corporate and consumer behaviour through greater transparency and by harnessing the insights from behavioural economics and social psychology.

• We will give regulators new powers to define and ban excessive interest rates on credit and store cards, and we will introduce a seven-day cooling-off period for store cards
  
• We will oblige credit card companies to provide better information to their customers in a uniform electronic format that will allow consumers to find out whether they are receiving the best deal
  
• We will introduce stronger consumer protections, including measures to end unfair bank and financial charges
  

Details of how these commitments will be fulfilled will follow shortly.

Could there be some light at the end of the tunnel

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-knowledge/260583-coalition-our-programme-government.html

We will provide more protection against aggressive bailiffs and unreasonable charging orders, ensure that courts have the power to insist that repossession is always a last resort, and ban orders for sale on unsecured debts of less than £25,000

• We will provide more protection against aggressive bailiffs and unreasonable charging orders, ensure that courts have the power to insist that repossession is always a last resort, and ban orders for sale on unsecured debts of less than £25,000
  

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_187876.pdf

subbing

bump

subbing

great news well done

"RATIO MONEY" (kevin webster coronation street etc) INDIRECT PRESS RELEASE HERE DATED OCTOBER 13 20098

Credit Management & Debt Collection Business Industry News

Take a look at this,very interesting

 

Reported this morning on BBC

 

Court lets woman off £8,000 loan

By Ian Pollock

Personal finance reporter, BBC News

 

 

The obligation to repay many consumer loans may be undermined

A decision by a county court Judge could mean thousands of borrowers being able to renege on their debts.

Judge Jacqueline Smart at South Shields county court has decided that the MBNA credit card company cannot demand the repayment of a customer's debt.

It tried to force Lynne Thorius to repay the £8,000 she owed on her card.

But the Judge decided there had been an unfair relationship between Ms Thorius and MBNA because of the way she had been sold payment protection insurance.

'Massive ramifications'

Ms Thorius' case was pursued on her behalf by a claims management firm Cartal Client Review, based in Manchester, and the law firm Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors.

Carl Wright of Cartal Client Review, claimed the court decision was a landmark judgement.

"This will have massive ramifications for consumers up and down the country," he said.

But MBNA downplayed the importance of the court decision.

"The judgement went against MBNA for a number of reasons," a spokeswoman said.

"In principle, because the deputy district judge felt that MBNA had not on this occasion provided the appropriate documents to the customer and as such was not able to rely on the clauses MBNA would ordinarily seek to rely on in these cases," she explained.

"The case is a county court case and each case is decided on its own merits and on the factual circumstances of each case. This does not set any legal precedent," said MBNA.

'Secret commission'

The credit card in question was branded with the logo of Sunderland football club and was sold to Ms Thorius in the club's shop in 2002.

The PPI policy was sold to her at the same time, to pay off her account if she fell ill or was made redundant.

But, critically, she had not been told that MBNA would be receiving regular commission payments from the insurance provider ITT London & Edinburgh, a subsidiary of the Aviva insurance group.

Judge Smart agreed with the argument of Ms Thorius's barrister, Paul Brant, that this "secret" commission meant the credit card deal was unfair and therefore in breach the Consumer Credit Act.

This point could potentially undermine many other agreements where PPI has been sold by the lender alongside a loan.

These include car finance deals, other personal loans and even mortgages.

"This practice is believed to be widespread and formed part of the Competition Commission's decision to prohibit the co-sale of PPI with credit in its report published on 29/1/09," Mr Brant noted.

"This point is likely to affect many thousands of individuals within England and Wales," he added.

Repayments

Judge Smart also agreed that the debt on Ms Thorius's credit card was unenforceable because the card company could not provide a copy of the original loan agreement, which is also required by the Consumer Credit Act.

MBNA's claim for the repayment of the outstanding money on the card was rejected.

And the Judge ordered the company either to repay Ms Thorius's PPI premiums and interest, or the value of the commissions it had received which so far has been undisclosed.

The PPI premiums, which rose each month as the credit card debts increased, amounted to £2,500 over the time the card had been in use.

Controversial

The claims management industry which has emerged in the past few years has been highly controversial.

Many firms advertise in newspapers and on television, encouraging people to come forward to write off their debts.

This year the authorities, such as the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), Ministry of Justice (which regulates claims management firms) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, have warned firms not to make exaggerated claims about their ability to get debts written off because of apparent technical errors in the lenders' paperwork.

Since April 2007 more than 100 such firms, or those advertising for people to pursue personal injury claims, have been shut down by the OFT.

But the South Shields ruling appears to open up a new and genuine line of attack for claims firms.

"We have been using this argument for some time but lenders have been settling outside the courts to avoid publicity," said Mr Wright.

MBNA applied for leave to appeal, which was rejected, but it may now apply directly to a higher court for permission to appeal.

Only when higher courts have decided the issue will the legal ramifications, and the effects on lender and borrowers, be clear.

 

Very interesting information and well worth looking into.

 

As discussed elsewhere and recommended by the Ministry of Justice everyone should take advice before paying a CMC to take on their case

 

]cartelclientreview.co.uk

Any football fans out there good idea to post this on the Sunderland football fans website and the liverpool Man utd nEWCASTLE etc etc

in fact all the affiliated front names that MBNA ARE BEHIND !!!!!

Congratulations !!